Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama Is Serious About Making the Rich Pay Higher Taxes

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted February 27, 2009.


Barack Obama's first budget proposal fulfills several of the promises he made during the 2008 campaign, but the Corporate Right is poised for a fight.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why the End May Be Coming for Coal
Christine MacDonald

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Study Claims Even the Most Sophisticated Readers Can Be Manipulated
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Joshua Holland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On Thursday, President Barack Obama released his first budget proposal. A quick-and-dirty review of its provisions prompted the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center to state the obvious: "In case you hadn't noticed, the Bush years are definitely over." 

The New York Times summarized what's in store if it passes

President Obama will propose further tax increases on the affluent to help pay for his promise to make health care more accessible and affordable, calling for stricter limits on the benefits of itemized deductions taken by the wealthiest households, administration officials said Wednesday. 

The tax proposal, coming after recent years in which wealth has become more concentrated at the top of the income scale, introduces a politically volatile edge to the congressional debate over Mr. Obama's domestic priorities.  

The Associated Press adds that while the proposal "lacked many details," the "policies represent a clear ideological break from the Bush administration": 

President Barack Obama's budget proposal would shift much of the tax burden from middle- and low-income families to the wealthy, while increasing taxes on many businesses. 

Oil and gas companies would be hit with big tax increases, as would U.S. companies doing business overseas. Hedge fund and other private equity managers would also see significant tax increases. 

Tax cuts enacted under [George W.] Bush for families making more than $250,000 would be allowed to expire in 2011, increasing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The top capital gains tax rate would be increased from 15 percent to 20 percent. 

This is what's known as fulfilling a campaign promise; as Bush said after being returned to the Oval Office in 2004, "elections matter." 

During the campaign, Republicans, desperate for a talking point that might derail the Obama machine, decided to call the Democratic nominee a "redistributionist" (at least by those who couldn't bring themselves to call the moderate nominee a "socialist").   

Of course, everyone who governs redistributes wealth; it's known as a "defining function" of states -- right up there with protecting their sovereign territories and maintaining a legal system. Every time a government collects taxes from those who can afford to pay and uses the funds to build a road that's available to the general public, every time the government hires a cop or a firefighter that serves the public without charge, it's redistributing wealth. 

Beyond those things, which everyone supports, are a host of policies that impact different people's economic outcomes. This is where the rubber meets the road: Is the government redistributing wealth down to the majority, or is it redistributing the wealth upward?

We know what the Bush administration did: It continued a long trend of policies that resulted in upward redistribution, also known as "reverse socialism." When Reagan was elected in 1980, the top 1 percent of the economic pile grabbed just less than 9 percent of the nation's income; when George W. Bush arrived, that figure was a hair less than 17 percent, and by 2006 (the latest year in the data series), it had ballooned to over 20 percent. 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, taxes, budget

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's about time!
Posted by: cberkland on Feb 27, 2009 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was fed up with seeing more and more of the nation's income going to the top 1% at the expense of the bottom 99%. We were beginning to look more and more like France before their revolution and they cut of the heads of their greedy aristocracy. The GOP always has been and always will be the party for the top 1%. How any in the bottom 99% can be so stupid as to ever vote for them is beyond me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OBAMA MISREY INDEX Posted by: reelman
Another great article, Joshua.
Posted by: Quannah on Feb 27, 2009 3:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The top 400 paid just more than $18 billion in federal income taxes in 2006, or an average of $45 million, on a record $105 billion in total income — the lowest effective tax rate in the 15 years since the agency began releasing such data."

He's only allowing the tax cuts to expire, and while I applaud that, I believe he should increase that rate by a further 20% -- at least.

The burden has rested on the shoulders (and backs) of low-to-moderate income Americans for far too long. Hell, I wouldn't mind going back to a 90% rate for the top 1%! Call it "redistribution" or "socialism" or "communism" or whatever you want to call it. I call it FAIR.

President "Robin Hood" has a nice ring to it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Can't do 90%... Posted by: ahmlco
» RE: Can't do 90%... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Can't do 90%... Posted by: GeorgeSalt
» RE: Can't do 90%... Posted by: undead
» RE: Can't do 90%... Posted by: bornxeyed
» WTF!! Posted by: walldodger1969
» RE: WTF!! Posted by: 2thepoint
Not all Republicans or businesses...
Posted by: ahmlco on Feb 27, 2009 4:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not all Republicans or businesses feel that way. Warren Buffett himself stated that he wasn't paying his "fair share" of taxes under the current system.

So did Reed Hastings, chief executive of Netflix, who said that he'd support tax rates of up to 50%. "The more money I make, the more tax dollars going to roads and schools and..."

So forget wage caps. Let people shoot for the moon... and take half.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“reverse socialism” of Bush.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Feb 27, 2009 4:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yea got point about this tax from Obama being just a typical day at the office for any government. If it were a Republican the speech would be similar... just don't mention the tax.

It does seem to me that Bush's tax cuts in 2001 were directed at what he himself called "my base". His base supporters, the disgustingly rich. Thus, Obama is just setting things back to normal, tax wise. If the taxes the top 8% elites of the nation paid then could be called normal. I might call it 'a start', but anyho'...

Now, this article mentions; "On the other hand, if you are making more than $250,000, you may not be so happy" but I seem to recall reading this tax, er, redistribution of wealth, will not impact that person so much as the truly crazy Billions up-their-arse rich.

So I find the New York Times article a bit misleading.

And of course, the Republicans will kick and scream about tax increases that will cause a massive deficit (as if tax cuts don't, but no one ever mentions that). Read my lips...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: “reverse socialism” of Bush. Posted by: dragonlady620
Fair
Posted by: Jeanne on Feb 27, 2009 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sure that no one who is earning $250000+ in adjusted gross income would want to trade places with anyone earning $50,000 just so they can enjoy the tax cut. I would wager that those at the top of earnings bracket will not suffer for paying 3 or 4 percent additional -- at least they won't be forced to miss a meal, live in their cars, get food from a food bank or soup kitchen because their tax bill went up. I could hardly believe the network newscasts last night as two of them (and I'm not sure which two) highlighted the sob stories of "average" business people who will be adversely affected by this proposal. Like we are to feel sorry for their misfortune that their adjusted gross income (taxable) is over $250,000!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fair Posted by: VZEQICVA
unemployed
Posted by: LeaveMeAlone on Feb 27, 2009 4:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's tax proposals for the oil and gas industry certainly won't help the hundreds of thousands of unemployed oil and gas workers like me. Want to wring more money from the high earners, go ahead. But don't target whole industries for extinction. Most oil and gas workers are not fat cats. Most of us are simply tring to earn a basic living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unemployed OIL WORKER?!?! Posted by: Ghoulman
» drill baby drill Posted by: edgar1
» Extinction? Posted by: macrumpton
A well balanced article- cheers to Joshua Holland
Posted by: watching-n-waiting on Feb 27, 2009 5:47 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I am one of those whose taxes will increase and I say "bring-it-on". I don't want to live in a country where my fellow citizens are facing poverty, dispare and loss of hope. Why would anyone? I want to live shoulder to shoulder with "my people" in prosperity for all (breathing healthy air and drinking uncontaminated water).
I want the citizenry who people our streets to have the same health benefits as I and acess to the same level of education- who wouldn't?
I've looked at the tax plan and the truth be told we're talking about a relativey small amount of money at the end of the year so I'm having a difficult time understaning what all the fuss is about.
If my fellow "privilaged-class" tax payers really do object so strenuously (and I doubt they do, it's mainly Rush Limbaugh generated conservative spin) to paying a relativelly small tax increase I would ask them to consider that "we" consistently take more than our share so suck it up and accept your obligation to the country of people who enabled you to strive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hot diggety!
Posted by: HeroesAll on Feb 27, 2009 6:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a good start, and let's hope he can keep up the pressure.

A lot of people will unthinkingly protest this - mostly people who'd like to think of themselves as one day becoming rich, egged on by the few truly rich. There's a prevalent meme to the effect that "I earned that money, it's all mine", which is pernicious in that it's partly right and partly wrong - this is the one that makes people bray about government taxes being theft. Partly right, in that you (mostly) worked to earn it, and partly wrong, in that the rate of pay is decided by society at large (in a way - it's not like a conscious decision, but the result is the same).

The odd thing is that those complaining never stop to think about whether what a stock trader does is really, truly, ruly worth thousands of times what a doctor or teacher or farmer or cleaner does. Are they working that many more hours? No. Are they expending correspondingly more effort? No. Do they produce thousands of times the value to society? Clearly not. Yet folks still want to believe in the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - that one day, if they behave themselves, they too can have a cushy job that earns them an obscene rate of pay.

Or, better still, inherits squillions and never have to work again. Yes, I fancy the idea myself. No, I don't think inherited wealth (or obscene wealth of any sort, really) should be exempt from the taxes paid by people who work for their money.

Please forgive the incoherence - my head is behaving badly today, and everything's all swimmy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hot diggety! Posted by: Lilly
Time for pragmatism
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 27, 2009 7:08 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During my recent second-time around graduate education, I took a course in ethics. The field has some brilliant systems but they lack any sort of agreement...except that distributive ethics (who gets what) is a non-starter.

So that leaves it in the hands of political decision-making. That confirms Aristotle's conviction that political philosophy is what all the rest is all about, anywho--to paraphrase just a bit.

Do we not yet have enough experience to know what works when it comes to taxes and what doesn't? One of my mantras to survive the last 30 years was, "Create a proletariat and you will pay the price."

Our leadership was not listening. So we shall see whether we have come to our senses in time to avoid the violence that comes from creating a proletariat. For my offsprings' sake, I hope so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time for pragmatism Posted by: VZEQICVA
Proud To Pay More Taxes!!!
Posted by: thepeasants on Feb 27, 2009 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I LOVE THIS MAN OBAMA!! And I am proud and happy to pay more taxes to his Progressive Government. Health Care for All! Long overdue. Extended Unemployment for the victims of the last administration. Yes, we must take care of our people. Food Stamps! No Brainer! The More You Make, The More You Should Pay. To the wealthiest of us much has been given, and More is expected. In the words of John McCain "Donald Trump doesn't need a tax cut!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great point Steveo Posted by: marid
let us all get along....
Posted by: eosrk on Feb 28, 2009 12:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and set a 8% flat tax for everybody....that right, every state because not every state has a income tax, and that's what cheating everyone else and straining the system!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pushback
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Feb 28, 2009 1:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The super rich, generous humanitarians that they are, can be counted on to take this development in stride, right?


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really? Is Obama serious about ANYTHING?
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 28, 2009 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quoting JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent in a Yahoo news article posted about 10 minutes ago:

"Even after the combat drawdown, a very large force of as many as 50,000 troops will remain — an element of the withdrawal strategy that has caused heartache among anti-war Democrats who wanted a fuller pullout."


So tell me...is THIS the big Iraq pullout that the "grass roots" campaigning for Obama yielded? You guys worked YEARS to put Obama in office, and now he's proving himself to be exactly what a few of us posting here always knew he was.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally? Is Obama serious about ANYTHING? Posted by: watching-n-waiting
» Safe exit for who? Posted by: dustdevil
Headed the right way again
Posted by: Perry Logan on Feb 28, 2009 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After thirty years of delusonal economic policies, we're headed in the right direction--leftward--once again.

It's worth noting that even a moderate Democrat, Bill Clinton, was able give us higher income at all levels, a huge trade surplus, a huge drop in the poverty level, the biggest increase in college opportunity since the GI Bill--that sort of thing. People don't know this, because the media would never report anything good a Democrat ever did.

If the Repubs haven't totalled the Republic beyond all repair, Obama is in a much stronger position than Bill Clinton ever was, what with the internet and the implosion of the Republican Party.

Let's hope the Right doesn't launch a multi-million-dollar smear campaign against our new President, and his family, as they did in the 90's. Republicans will do anything they can to make Americans hate their own President. They are basically traitors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Headed the right way again Posted by: VZEQICVA
Let's be clear...
Posted by: madcat007 on Feb 28, 2009 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the other thing that should be noted in this article, since the point that anyone making over $250K probably won't be happy with the new tax law was brought up is that the increased tax doesn't kick in until the $250K mark. In other words, if you make $300K per year, only the last $50K is taxed at a higher rate. This tax plan can only help the general good for our nation. I'm happy he's attempting to do what he promised and I just hope the the greedy insiders don't derail him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why tax income?
Posted by: undead on Feb 28, 2009 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shouldn't we tax property? It is property or the control of that property that makes one wealthy. The more property one controls the gradually higher the tax should be, too.

Higher property taxes would control the power of those uber rich, too. And this is the real problem, the rich have too much say in the political affairs because they buy politicians, and get to make the laws for their interests, not the general public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why tax income? Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Why tax income? Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Why tax income? Posted by: EncinoM
Lunamina
Posted by: lunamina on Feb 28, 2009 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a joke, right? This is not FIXING anything. How in the world anyone would equate this MINIMAL increase in taxes on the rich to putting things right for the rest of us is just plain RIDICULOUS. The 'elites' who maintain power in this country because of their wealth, know this is NOT going to change things and so do I. If this is the best we are going to get out of Obama, THEN ALL THE WORK WE HAVE BEEN DOING THE LAST 3 YEARS TO MAKE CHANGE AND END THE WAR IS STILL NOT ENOUGH!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lunamina Posted by: undead
» Yes Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Yes...Easier said than done... Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: Yes...Easier said than done... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» And another thing . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: And another thing . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: And another thing . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: And another thing . . . Posted by: Joshua Holland
keeping promises
Posted by: lionsdenmother on Feb 28, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
obama is keeping the promises he campained on whats wrong with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: keeping promises Posted by: TheLimit
Republicans should be happy
Posted by: billwald on Feb 28, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The income tax was sold to Americans on the basis that only the richest 5% would pay ANY income tax. The working people were not supposed to pay any income tax. You who want the good old days to return should be very happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody
Posted by: Sparks56 on Feb 28, 2009 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The income of the 400 wealthiest Americans swelled in 2006, soaring nearly 23 percent from the previous year, to an average of $263 million, according to data released Thursday by the Internal Revenue Service. "
Nobody is worth that kind of annual income, nobody. For one thing, too many politicians can be bought with that kind of money. A tax system needs to be engineered to make that kind of income impossible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flat Tax
Posted by: cyr3n on Feb 28, 2009 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
get rid of loopholes.. make it easy for people to do their own taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Flat Tax Posted by: Diecash1
» RE: Flat Tax Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Flat Tax Posted by: Dboy
jbberjab
Posted by: jibberjab on Feb 28, 2009 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, the people with more money most likely ?? will contribute to non profits. I certainly do not want my little 2k a year being taxed more. I give to my church that has wonderful programs to help the needy. Not all sustained by the government. There are soooo many charities out here. Do not back pedal. I grew I to help others in need with no looking back, even though my own family needed help. Time to remove the monkey.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well....
Posted by: tony12000 on Feb 28, 2009 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's giving them so much money through the bailouts, that they'll have enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welcome to the GOP Great Depression II
Posted by: jimswanson on Feb 28, 2009 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
“The Bush League of Nations” [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

Thanks to Bush’s TARP, we just poured several hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money into the cesspool known as America’s financial system.

What did we get in return? No stimulus. No accounting. Nothing.

We are truly nuts.

But I see an instructive parallel here.

Dumping that money into that Fat Cat cesspool was like Bush and the GOP giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the Super Rich.

In both cases, we got nothing in return. No stimulus. No accounting. Nothing.

Nothing, that is, other than a multitude of moral and financial deficits.

Welcome to the GOP Great Depression II.

We are truly out of our gourds.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
“The Bush League of Nations” [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, not exactly.......... Posted by: FredJones
Much ado about nothing...
Posted by: archivist on Feb 28, 2009 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are really rich you can ALWAYS get out of taxes anyway especially small businesses. The IRS takes your word as truth when reporting your yearly income. Most americans who take home a paycheck have no clue about this stuff nor do they have a way of "cheating" on their taxes since their employer takes care of reporting it for them.

Furthermore the IRS typically settles for 1/3 of back taxes, all you have to do is file and fail to pay.

Being self employed and avoiding 1099's and other assorted forms that people have to file to deduct your fees as an expense is the best way to live in America, it provides the most freedom. Businesses that generate nomial fees per customer for instance like $500 here $500 there where you provide an invoice and that is the only proof they need to decuct the expense. If you have a customer that pays you 10,000.00 or so throughout the year they need to file a 1099 which notifies the government as to how much you collected from them. Otherwise they can't claim the deduction.

I've lived all of this and seen it with my own two eyes it works fabulously. I persoanlly don't want to fund government proppaganda and needless wars. The extra money I make from avoiding taxes goes back into the economy via restaurants and retail items and vacations.

People who call this cheating are just pissed because they are wage slaves. There are lots of small business owners who bring in 50 - 100k in income/profit and pay hardly any taxes at all. They work thier tax returns out to show 20k or so in profit and "pay" taxes on that with untaxed profits.

People who start their own business and foolishly pay their taxes "properly" wonder why they can't seem to get ahead and eventually fail. The system is desgined this way. The government knows that intelligent producers are able to avaoid taxes and they are ok with that because their money gets spent back into the hands of the other tax payers anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the Corporate Left?
Posted by: FredJones on Feb 28, 2009 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should they be paying more too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You folks are quite original
Posted by: owlsliveintrees on Feb 28, 2009 4:31 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asking that your taxes be lowered while asking that other's taxes be raised? How very generous of you. You want more. So you want other people to have less. You can't go into their house and take their possessions. So you elect people who confiscate their income and give it to you. Class acts, all of you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Notes from Milwaukee.
Posted by: AJR Journal on Feb 28, 2009 7:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ryan Braun (Milwaukee Brewer left fielder) should earn about $7 million this year. His career will be short (10-15 years max) and then he will regress to the mean income levels of the rest of us.
Should he have his taxes raised? He is certainly not going to earn this for the rest of his life. It is a short term windfall.
I think it is wrong to single him out for excessive taxation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't screw Ryan Braun! Posted by: AJR Journal
» RE: Notes from Milwaukee. Posted by: masthead
» Not if you pay 50% of it as taxes. Posted by: AJR Journal
Obama and Taxes
Posted by: aberdeen on Feb 28, 2009 9:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Response to Joshua Holland; Obama and Taxes

While it is nice that Obama wants to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy to pre-Junior Bushwhacker levels, he hardly represents a president who wants to tax fairly and equitably.

If Obama wanted to truly reform our tax system, he would completely replace the current telephone-book fiasco, grant everyone a single "poverty-level" exemption and tax all income above the poverty level, including capital gains, the same percentage.

This would greatly help the poor and working class, represent a tax break for the middle class and be a fair and just way to tax.

Of course, nobody in Washington really wants to "reform" our government. Actually helping people in any significant kind of way would be setting a bad example for our children, I suppose.

After all, we need to keep "religious" ideas such as loving our neighbor as ourselves and state separate, thus saith the ACLU and modern progressives, who we all know speak for freedom, truth, justice, peace and God, whoops, I mean "nature".

Sincerely,
Richard Aberdeen
FREE CD, Who Would Jesus Bomb?
www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've Been Looking for this!
Posted by: snowdancer76 on Feb 28, 2009 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for such a great and to-the-point article. I am getting so tired of being called a Socialist and this article helped me so much in my future rebuttals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The non-partisan facts are not hard to find
Posted by: PaulD on Feb 28, 2009 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The nation's richest 1% earned 19% of the income. They paid 37% of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The richest 5% earned 33% of the income. They paid 57% of the income taxes.

The bottom 50% earned 13% of the income. They paid 3% of the income taxes.

(2007 figures)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was a boy........
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Mar 1, 2009 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was the 1950's. We had a 91% tax bracket for the rich. Did we have millionaires? Hell yes, lots of them. But one thing we did have then that we don't have now is a middle class.

If you made $12,000 a year you lived the 'Leave it to Beaver' lifestyle. All your needs were met and if you had to replace a window because you son knocked a baseball through it,it wasn't that big of a drain on your budget. Maybe you had to eat hamburger for a week instead of steak but you were able to handle it.

What passes for middle class today starts at about $175,000 a year and that's getting to be tough to get by on. How utterly insane can we be.

Why was the middleclass booming when I was a boy? Simple, no one wanted to break into the 91% tax hole. We were 'content' to be middleclass. Kennedy fucked that up. He cut taxes on the rich and the rest is history. A history of downward spiraling incomes and National debt. We got that before Nixon got elected and it has only gotten worse.

We need to get back to 'The more you make ,the more you pay' tax systems. Forget about if you're only making big money for a short while. It's not about how long you're in 'Fat City' it's about the amount of money you earn,plain and simple.

OK some pro-sports folks and a few highly paid entertainers might complain about it but all things be true, a fair amount of pro-sports types have few skills outside of tackling a running back and most actors know they won't be high on the hog forever. So should we feel bad for them having to pay more in tax? We didn't back in the fifties and we still had huge stars,sports greats and captains of industry to look up to.

The difference was,we,as a Nation, understood the concept of 'Shared Wealth'. It was the actions of the truly greedy that put
their kind of politicians into positions of power and it's their kids we're having to bailout now and after we do their businesses will raise their fees on us to pay back the bailout. So...hell yes raise the taxes on the wealthy. So what if they have to eat hamburger instead of speciality steaks in an over priced resturants. That's justice for holding such a
'Greedier than thou' attitudes.

The song had it right back in the 80's......
'EAT THE RICH' Check that! Chewie,stringy,flavorless meats taste like shit...and we're alreeady eating enough of that.

TAX THE BASTARDS INTO SENSABILITY,THAT'S FAIR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don'tcha know
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Mar 2, 2009 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's only re-distribution and socialism if you take from the few and give to the many.

If you take from the many and give to the few, that's capitalism and democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the rich shouold look at it this way...
Posted by: rayne on Mar 3, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if the poor folks die out due to poverty, starvation and poor healthcare, the wealthy will have to resort to cleaning their OWN toilets. that threat alone should prompt them to pony up.

i for one am sick of the wealthy/corporate/overprivileged welfare system that has had this nation by the balls for decades. time to give back all the goodies you've stolen from the less privileged, you a**holes. payback's a bitch, huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement